DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0056206 in view of Evans et al., U.S. Patent 7,364,487.
Regarding claim 1, Micko discloses a magnetic panel (tile 164) comprising: two or more panels, each of the two or more panels comprising: at least one recess (161); and at least one magnet (160) secured in the at least one recess by at least one casing (163) such that the at least one magnet can rotate; wherein each of the two or more panels are configured such that when the at least one corner of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the at least one corner of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the at least one magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the two or more panels (magnetically-joinable, title), but does not specifically disclose, in the embodiment, the at least one recess is positioned at least one corner of a first panel and a second panel of the two or more panels, wherein the at least one magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet; wherein the play area structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the play area structure and play with or within the play area structure. Micko does teach use of a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (Fig. 11; paragraphs 6 “two two-pole magnets joined end-to-end”, 37, 46; claim 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet to allow rotation for versatility in tile assemblies, as well as a secure attachment between tiles. As a result, when the at least one corner of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the at least one corner of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the at least one magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the two or more panels. Micko teaches, in an embodiment, magnets being located in the corner of tiles (Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the magnets in tile corners for increased magnetic surface along each tile side, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Evans teaches magnetic building toys of a scale children can interact with (see Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the tiles of a similar size depending on the toy desired, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The phrase “configured such that when the at least one corner of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the at least one corner of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the at least one magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the two or more panels” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Micko, as modified, discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one casing comprises a first portion and a second portion on either side of a corner of the at least one corner, wherein the first portion is angled to the second portion at an angle that matches an angle of the corner (as modified, in order to produce a square or triangular tile as shown with cartridge 163, the cartridge would need to be produced with two portions angled with respect to one another to produce the tile element corner).
Regarding claim 3, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one casing houses the at least one magnet (see Fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 4, Micko, as modified, discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one recess comprises a first recess and a second recess (see Fig. 14), and wherein the at least one magnet comprises a first magnet secured in the first recess by a first casing such that the first magnet can rotate and a second magnet secured in the second recess by a second casing such that the second magnet can rotate (paragraph 53; see Fig. 14, generally).
Regarding claim 5, Micko, as modified, discloses a magnetic panel wherein each of the two or more panels comprises a first face (upper face shown in Fig. 6C) and a second face (lower face as shown in Fig. 6C), wherein an edge connects the first face and the second face around a perimeter of the each of the two or more panels (as shown in Fig. 6C), wherein the at least one recess is positioned in the edge and wherein the at least one recess is through each of the two or more panels from the first face to the second face (see Figs. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein when a first edge of the first panel is brought towards the first edge of the second panel, the first edge of the first panel and the first edge of the second panel form a hinge, wherein the first panel and the second panel can be rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge (as the panel edges are magnetically connected and rounded, see Fig. 16B). The phrase “when a first edge of the first panel is brought towards the first edge of the second panel, the first edge of the first panel and the first edge of the second panel form a hinge, wherein the first panel and the second panel can be rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the magnetic connection is maintained between the first panel and the second panel while the first panel and the second panel are rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge (as the spherical magnets are configured to rotate). The phrase “wherein the magnetic connection is maintained between the first panel and the second panel while the first panel and the second panel are rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one recess is shaped to house an outer profile of the at least one magnet (see Figs. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Micko in view of Evans, as modified, discloses a magnetic panel but does not specifically disclose wherein the play area structure comprises a life-size play area between 0.5 metres and 2.5 metres tall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the tiles within the given size range depending on the toy desired, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 10, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprise at least one of: a triangular panel; a square panel (see Fig 14).
Regarding claim 11, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprise at least one of: a rectangular panel; a trapezoid panel (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprises a plurality of panels (see Fig. 17) and the system can be arranged to build the play area structure, and wherein the play area structure comprises at least one of: a play house; a stage; a scene; an exhibition display; a play car; a play spaceship; a box; furniture; floor tiles; a floor mat of combined panels; a toy roadway and a stage (Fig. 17, for example). The phrase “can be arranged to build the play area” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one casing covers the at least one recess to retain the at least one magnet in the at least one recess (as shown in Figs. 16).
Regarding claim 14, Micko discloses a magnetic panel wherein the at least one casing is push-fit and/or a friction-fit over the at least one corner of the first panel and the at least one corner of the second panel (via clip action, paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 15, Micko discloses a magnetic tile panel wherein the at least one casing comprises a first safety clip (mechanical clip, paragraph 52) for encapsulating a first magnet, wherein when the first magnet is removed from the at least one recess the first magnet remains encapsulated in the first safety clip (as the magnet is within the cartridge, see Figs. 16). The phrase “when the first magnet is removed from the at least one recess the first magnet remains encapsulated in the first safety clip” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Micko discloses a magnetic tile wherein the two or more panels are comprised of foam (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 19, Micko discloses a magnetic tile comprising: at least one recess (161) positioned at an edge of the panel (164; see Fig. 16B); and at least one magnet (160) secured in the at least one recess by at least one casing (163) such that the at least one magnet can rotate (rotatable magnet, abstract, but does not disclose, in the specific embodiment, positioned at at least one corner of the panel nor wherein the at least one magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet; wherein the play area structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the play area structure and play with or within the play area structure. Micko does teach use of a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (Fig. 11; paragraphs 6 “two two-pole magnets joined end-to-end”, 37, 46; claim 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet to allow rotation for versatility in tile assemblies, as well as a secure attachment between tiles. As a result, when the at least one corner of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the at least one corner of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the at least one magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the two or more panels. Micko teaches, in an embodiment, magnets being located in the corner of tiles (Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the magnets in tile corners for increased magnetic surface along each tile side, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Evans teaches magnetic building toys of a scale children can interact with (see Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the tiles of a similar size depending on the toy desired, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 20, Micko discloses a magnetic panel assembly comprising: providing a panel (164) comprising at least one recess positioned at the edge of the panel (see Figs. 16); securing, using at least one casing (163), at least one magnet (160) in the at least one recess such that the at least one magnet can rotate (rotatable magnet, abstract), but does not disclose, in the embodiment, the at least one recess positioned at at least one corner of the panel nor the at least one magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet; wherein the play structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the play structure and play with or within the structure play. Micko does teach use of a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (Fig. 11; paragraphs 6 “two two-pole magnets joined end-to-end”, 37, 46; claim 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet to allow rotation for versatility in tile assemblies, as well as a secure attachment between tiles. As a result, when the at least one corner of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the at least one corner of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the at least one magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the two or more panels. Micko teaches, in an embodiment, magnets being located in the corner of tiles (Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the magnets in tile corners for increased magnetic surface along each tile side, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Evans teaches magnetic building toys of a scale children can interact with (see Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the tiles of a similar size depending on the toy desired, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0056206 in view of Evans et al., U.S. Patent 7,364,487 and Rudisill, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0227934.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses a magnetic tile but does not disclose wherein the system comprises a foldable panel with pre-created foldable lines which can be folded to provide different shapes of the foldable panel, and wherein the foldable panel can be magnetically attached to the at least one magnet. Rudisill teaches (scoring/compressing lines in a magnetic panel to allow for folding of the panel (paragraph 105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score, or add perforations, to allow for folding of individual panels for a more versatile set of panels.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0056206 in view of Evans et al., U.S. Patent 7,364,487 and Hartloff et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184852.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses a magnetic panel but does not specifically disclose wherein the two or more panels re comprised of polyethylene terephthalate, PET. Hartloff teaches PET used in toy assembly panels (paragraph 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize PET for the tiles for a lightweight panel assembly, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See rejections directed toward new limitations as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633